GINA M. FOUST v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. Missouri

GINA M. FOUST v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedNovember 20, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00040

StatusUnknown

This text of GINA M. FOUST v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security (GINA M. FOUST v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

GINA M. FOUST v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION

GINA M. FOUST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 2:25-CV-00040-ACL ) FRANK BISIGNANO, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of Defendant’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits under the Social Security Act. Currently pending is Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand. (Doc. 16.) In his motion, Defendant requests that the Court reverse the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and remand this action to Defendant pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant states that, after careful review of the above-captioned case, agency counsel determined that remand was necessary for further evaluation of Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant indicates that, upon remand by this Court, the agency will further evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective reports and her residual functional capacity and proceed as necessary in the sequential evaluation process. Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) states that “[t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” In order for the Court to properly remand a case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four, the Court must enter an order either affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision. See Brown v. Barnhart, 282 F.3d 580, 581 (8th Cir. 2002). The undersigned believes that it is appropriate to reverse and remand this case in order to permit the Commissioner to take further action as requested in his motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and this cause is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for those reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order. A separate written Judgment will be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

/s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni ABBIE CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this 20th day of November, 2025.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION

GINA M. FOUST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 2:25-CV-00040-ACL ) FRANK BISIGNANO, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of Defendant’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits under the Social Security Act. Currently pending is Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand. (Doc. 16.) In his motion, Defendant requests that the Court reverse the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and remand this action to Defendant pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant states that, after careful review of the above-captioned case, agency counsel determined that remand was necessary for further evaluation of Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant indicates that, upon remand by this Court, the agency will further evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective reports and her residual functional capacity and proceed as necessary in the sequential evaluation process. Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) states that “[t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” In order for the Court to properly remand a case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four, the Court must enter an order either affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision. See Brown v. Barnhart, 282 F.3d 580, 581 (8th Cir. 2002). The undersigned believes that it is appropriate to reverse and remand this case in order to permit the Commissioner to take further action as requested in his motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and this cause is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for those reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order. A separate written Judgment will be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

/s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni ABBIE CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this 20th day of November, 2025.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

GINA M. FOUST v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gina-m-foust-v-frank-bisignano-commissioner-of-social-security-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack